Comments on: Six Arguments Against Religion V: Regulating Virtue and Selling Salvation http://druidjournal.net/2010/04/10/six-arguments-against-religion-v-regulating-virtue-and-selling-salvation/ Spiritual Guidance by Word, Card, and Star Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:51:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: The Tao (for Jeff) « Executive Pagan http://druidjournal.net/2010/04/10/six-arguments-against-religion-v-regulating-virtue-and-selling-salvation/comment-page-1/#comment-198913 The Tao (for Jeff) « Executive Pagan Mon, 03 May 2010 17:52:18 +0000 http://druidjournal.net/?p=1402#comment-198913 [...] by executivepagan on April 12, 2010 The other day Jeff Lilly began a post with a quote from the beginning of chapter 72 of the Tao Te Ching, as translated by Stephen [...] [...] by executivepagan on April 12, 2010 The other day Jeff Lilly began a post with a quote from the beginning of chapter 72 of the Tao Te Ching, as translated by Stephen [...]

]]> By: Jeff Lilly http://druidjournal.net/2010/04/10/six-arguments-against-religion-v-regulating-virtue-and-selling-salvation/comment-page-1/#comment-196044 Jeff Lilly Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:21:27 +0000 http://druidjournal.net/?p=1402#comment-196044 Kate -- re "judge not" -- good points. :-) I do think, though, that the practice of actively reserving judgement is a good one. Obviously this is itself a judgement, but I'm not saying all judgement is inherently bad -- just that it's good to practice not judging everything and everyone all the time. Kate — re “judge not” — good points. :-) I do think, though, that the practice of actively reserving judgement is a good one. Obviously this is itself a judgement, but I’m not saying all judgement is inherently bad — just that it’s good to practice not judging everything and everyone all the time.

]]> By: Jeff Lilly http://druidjournal.net/2010/04/10/six-arguments-against-religion-v-regulating-virtue-and-selling-salvation/comment-page-1/#comment-196042 Jeff Lilly Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:16:34 +0000 http://druidjournal.net/?p=1402#comment-196042 Kate -- re nuclear weapons -- I think the main problem with your example / argument here is that it implicitly assumes that nuclear weapons are the only effective tool of war and diplomacy. There are plenty of ways a nation can prevent itself from being a target of nuclear war without itself being a nuclear power. New Zealand, for example, has actually outlawed nuclear weaponry from its sovereign territory (which has caused some friction with the US, since of course we'd like to dock our nuclear submarines there). It hasn't been attacked by any of the nuclear powers, has it? Because using nuclear weapons is not without consequences. Maybe you'd say, well, the US or one of the other nuclear powers would jump to New Zealand's aid if anyone were to attack it, so effectively it IS being defended by nuclear weapons. Maybe so, but I think that the primary reason no one has attacked it is because New Zealand is an open, free country which offends no one. No one has any REASON to attack it. Similarly, if imperial aliens come from abroad, they will have to ask themselves whether it's more cost-effective to land all their troops or drop their expensive bombs, destroy our economic infrastructure, and send their human slaves to work in the rabidium mines... or to simply trade with us, work with us, and hire our workers. Mutual trade is almost always more cost-effective, which is why the American Empire is an economic empire, not a nuclear one. For another example of how nuclear warfare can be avoided without each nation having its own arsenal, check out my <a href="http://druidjournal.net/download-manager.php?id=8" rel="nofollow">"Virginia Dare" short story</a>. :-) Kate — re nuclear weapons — I think the main problem with your example / argument here is that it implicitly assumes that nuclear weapons are the only effective tool of war and diplomacy. There are plenty of ways a nation can prevent itself from being a target of nuclear war without itself being a nuclear power. New Zealand, for example, has actually outlawed nuclear weaponry from its sovereign territory (which has caused some friction with the US, since of course we’d like to dock our nuclear submarines there). It hasn’t been attacked by any of the nuclear powers, has it? Because using nuclear weapons is not without consequences. Maybe you’d say, well, the US or one of the other nuclear powers would jump to New Zealand’s aid if anyone were to attack it, so effectively it IS being defended by nuclear weapons. Maybe so, but I think that the primary reason no one has attacked it is because New Zealand is an open, free country which offends no one. No one has any REASON to attack it.

Similarly, if imperial aliens come from abroad, they will have to ask themselves whether it’s more cost-effective to land all their troops or drop their expensive bombs, destroy our economic infrastructure, and send their human slaves to work in the rabidium mines… or to simply trade with us, work with us, and hire our workers. Mutual trade is almost always more cost-effective, which is why the American Empire is an economic empire, not a nuclear one.

For another example of how nuclear warfare can be avoided without each nation having its own arsenal, check out my “Virginia Dare” short story. :-)

]]>